Precisely. Americans, due to their obsession with individualism at all costs, don't understand that they're effectively taking part in a conspiracy against themselves, when they endorse their exploitative health care system.

Location: In Hampshire,engaging in F.S.P.P to undermine the Beast System.

Posts: 4,221

Re: Socialised medicine?

Quote:

Originally Posted by docwesleyswift

Its not exploitative

If the health services are unavailable to the general population because the health industry is only interested in profit,and that state of affairs is the result of there not being any adequate state system,how on Earth can you say that that is not an exploitative situation?
"paying for it when you`re not ill"?
So,there`s no massive health insurance premiums that have to be paid by healthy people in the American system?

No private medicine is run for profit, if someone has a longterm expensive condition, they wont treat it. Their business is profit.

Some countries like Sweden, Japan and France have first class Nationalised healthcare.

The phamacutical industry should also be nationalised, instead of leaching money.

Sweden's government taxes the populace into oblivion for their care, which is diminishing by the second as far as accessibility goes. Budgetary demands have also mandated a cut in all grant spending, ensuring that (along with the rest of the socialized world) they will continue to trail far behind the US as they have consistently for the last FIVE DECADES or more in innovation of equipment, procedures and new drugs. Currently, their health care system isn't fully socialized. Some people are trying to work to emulate the "British system" (you didn't mention them but I have a TON of data on Britain should you wish me to share it), all the while FREE MARKET health care is rising, with the people that can afford it opting to pay the extra $$$ to utilize a system that actually WORKS. Budget requirements are also forcing them at this time to drastically reduce the workforce on the gov't payroll, further limiting availability of care. "Universally" incompetant, just as you'd expect when you hand something over to the government they have no business interfering with.

Japan is currently experiencing a lack of physicians. This is due to the fact that Nationalized health care demonizes doctors and by virtue of this and also of the unnecessary hassle and potential for problems with the government, tends the youth of the nation away from medicine and towards other professions. This is more or less the demonstrable reality in all "universal" health care systems. The only "fact" that can be used to defend their system is that they have the longest life expectancy, but that stat is irrelevant because Asia has ALWAYS had the highest life expectancy irrespective of the health care system in use. They also don't have to pay for any expenditures to defend their country since we do that. That unties funds for use elsewhere that the US simply does not have.

France's health care system is ranked NUMBER ONE by highly esteemed, not communist at all WHO (yeah, that was sarcasm) in 2000. The annual WHO report is the most skewed, misinterpreted, scientifically irresponsible document that could ever be devised. Just goes to show what an added across the board national 20% sales tax will get you. Add in the 35 or so percent annual income tax and whatever else the Holy See of French government can lay claim to and I'd imagine you could afford universal pet health care as well. Also, the French system isn't truly socialized and shouldn't be included with these other degenerate systems. The primary problem I have with the French system (and government) is that they generally think they can take what they want, interfere where they want and you just have to accept it. No way would a French tax rate work for a people that wanted to actually be free and have liberty.

Now, it is true that health care in the US is very expensive. But there are considerations to be made:

The US provides the majority of the world's innovation in medical equipment, procedure and new drugs, and has done so for at least the last 50 years. That's very expensive to maintain, but if the US doesn't do it, no one will because the rest of the world is socialized and funds never make their way into research when bureaucrats are budgeting money -it goes instead to "improve" short term conditions to satisfy the legislatively bound conditions that they, in their all-knowing wisdom, have imposed upon themselves. If the US was also socialized, where would the innovation come from? The rate of improvement of health care in general would decline precipitously if we abandon the concept of liberty in favor of these other systems that ultimately rely on the US system to do the "grunt work".

The US pharmaceutical industry is raping the economy not due to any parameters set for our health care system, but by erroneous corporate law that allows them power that they should not have and immunity from market forces that would otherwise keep them in check.

It should also be noted that all of the countries you cited, and likely all those you will choose to cite going forward, rely heavily on the US for other things, like security, which frees up money that they would not ordinarily have to spend. The tax rates required to maintain these sorts of "entitlement" programs are exactly why their economic productivity is dwarfed by the US. Until now, enough of the money in the US market has stayed in the private sector, which increases the economic activity in general, which increases economic output to ensure that we continue to have the highest standard of living generally in the world and continue generally to be the alpha primary variable in the world's economy.

If ten dollars in the private sector runs through the economy and after one year has changed hands 6 times, it is the economic equivalent of 60 dollars. If you take 5 of those dollars and give them to the government (an economic dead end), then at the end of the year you only have 30 dollars.

And anyone believing the garbage the WHO puts out really should re-evaluate their ability to review reality as opposed to politics-driven statistics created by dyed in the wool Marxists for purposes of global consolidationism.

The pharm. industry shouldn't be nationalized for the same reason health care shouldn't be nationalized. You don't want to be handing power over to the government unnecessarily. Governments are based in philosophy, not science. Philosophy concerns itself with timeless questions that are open for eternal debate, which suits government bureaucracy perfectly. Matters of science not so much. When bureaucrats legislate science, it becomes hard-wired in the bureaucratic machine. While science will reverse itself 180 degrees based upon new findings, the wheels of the politbureau turn ever more slowly, ensuring that any science they control will be perpetually outdated, and moreover will create bureaucracies within the bureaucracies in an attempt to manage everything, which will in turn spawn the creation of a truly endless number of additional laws, regulations, stipulations and limitations that will work only to further exacerbate the problem.

If the world denies liberty on the whole and there remains none to defend it, we will all reap the whirlwind. Pharm companies can be limited, their power can be constrained. Power given can be taken away. Government power is NEVER taken away, only added. Never in the history of civilization has this not been the case. The only way to reclaim power given to the government is to destroy the government. Destroying one company or industry would have a much less dramatic effect on humanity. I don't think the world realizes how much it relies on the one place in the world that still harbors some loyalty to the idea of people getting what they work for as opposed to donating everything to the State. But now that they've got one of their own in our highest office, I'm thinking we may all find out sooner rather than later which way the wind blows.

Sweden's government taxes the populace into oblivion for their care, which is diminishing by the second as far as accessibility goes. Budgetary demands have also mandated a cut in all grant spending, ensuring that (along with the rest of the socialized world) they will continue to trail far behind the US as they have consistently for the last FIVE DECADES or more in innovation of equipment, procedures and new drugs. Currently, their health care system isn't fully socialized. Some people are trying to work to emulate the "British system" (you didn't mention them but I have a TON of data on Britain should you wish me to share it), all the while FREE MARKET health care is rising, with the people that can afford it opting to pay the extra $$$ to utilize a system that actually WORKS. Budget requirements are also forcing them at this time to drastically reduce the workforce on the gov't payroll, further limiting availability of care. "Universally" incompetant, just as you'd expect when you hand something over to the government they have no business interfering with.

Japan is currently experiencing a lack of physicians. This is due to the fact that Nationalized health care demonizes doctors and by virtue of this and also of the unnecessary hassle and potential for problems with the government, tends the youth of the nation away from medicine and towards other professions. This is more or less the demonstrable reality in all "universal" health care systems. The only "fact" that can be used to defend their system is that they have the longest life expectancy, but that stat is irrelevant because Asia has ALWAYS had the highest life expectancy irrespective of the health care system in use. They also don't have to pay for any expenditures to defend their country since we do that. That unties funds for use elsewhere that the US simply does not have.

France's health care system is ranked NUMBER ONE by highly esteemed, not communist at all WHO (yeah, that was sarcasm) in 2000. The annual WHO report is the most skewed, misinterpreted, scientifically irresponsible document that could ever be devised. Just goes to show what an added across the board national 20% sales tax will get you. Add in the 35 or so percent annual income tax and whatever else the Holy See of French government can lay claim to and I'd imagine you could afford universal pet health care as well. Also, the French system isn't truly socialized and shouldn't be included with these other degenerate systems. The primary problem I have with the French system (and government) is that they generally think they can take what they want, interfere where they want and you just have to accept it. No way would a French tax rate work for a people that wanted to actually be free and have liberty.

Now, it is true that health care in the US is very expensive. But there are considerations to be made:

The US provides the majority of the world's innovation in medical equipment, procedure and new drugs, and has done so for at least the last 50 years. That's very expensive to maintain, but if the US doesn't do it, no one will because the rest of the world is socialized and funds never make their way into research when bureaucrats are budgeting money -it goes instead to "improve" short term conditions to satisfy the legislatively bound conditions that they, in their all-knowing wisdom, have imposed upon themselves. If the US was also socialized, where would the innovation come from? The rate of improvement of health care in general would decline precipitously if we abandon the concept of liberty in favor of these other systems that ultimately rely on the US system to do the "grunt work".

The US pharmaceutical industry is raping the economy not due to any parameters set for our health care system, but by erroneous corporate law that allows them power that they should not have and immunity from market forces that would otherwise keep them in check.

It should also be noted that all of the countries you cited, and likely all those you will choose to cite going forward, rely heavily on the US for other things, like security, which frees up money that they would not ordinarily have to spend. The tax rates required to maintain these sorts of "entitlement" programs are exactly why their economic productivity is dwarfed by the US. Until now, enough of the money in the US market has stayed in the private sector, which increases the economic activity in general, which increases economic output to ensure that we continue to have the highest standard of living generally in the world and continue generally to be the alpha primary variable in the world's economy.

If ten dollars in the private sector runs through the economy and after one year has changed hands 6 times, it is the economic equivalent of 60 dollars. If you take 5 of those dollars and give them to the government (an economic dead end), then at the end of the year you only have 30 dollars.

And anyone believing the garbage the WHO puts out really should re-evaluate their ability to review reality as opposed to politics-driven statistics created by dyed in the wool Marxists for purposes of global consolidationism.

The pharm. industry shouldn't be nationalized for the same reason health care shouldn't be nationalized. You don't want to be handing power over to the government unnecessarily. Governments are based in philosophy, not science. Philosophy concerns itself with timeless questions that are open for eternal debate, which suits government bureaucracy perfectly. Matters of science not so much. When bureaucrats legislate science, it becomes hard-wired in the bureaucratic machine. While science will reverse itself 180 degrees based upon new findings, the wheels of the politbureau turn ever more slowly, ensuring that any science they control will be perpetually outdated, and moreover will create bureaucracies within the bureaucracies in an attempt to manage everything, which will in turn spawn the creation of a truly endless number of additional laws, regulations, stipulations and limitations that will work only to further exacerbate the problem.

If the world denies liberty on the whole and there remains none to defend it, we will all reap the whirlwind. Pharm companies can be limited, their power can be constrained. Power given can be taken away. Government power is NEVER taken away, only added. Never in the history of civilization has this not been the case. The only way to reclaim power given to the government is to destroy the government. Destroying one company or industry would have a much less dramatic effect on humanity. I don't think the world realizes how much it relies on the one place in the world that still harbors some loyalty to the idea of people getting what they work for as opposed to donating everything to the State. But now that they've got one of their own in our highest office, I'm thinking we may all find out sooner rather than later which way the wind blows.

Yes and Americas got a system where 1 in 3 people have no healthcare, wonderful.

You tell me, if you got a serious longterm condition where you would rather be ?

A place where it got treated without payment or a place where when your insurance ran out would cost you more then you could pay.

Yes and Americas got a system where 1 in 3 people have no healthcare, wonderful.

You tell me, if you got a serious longterm condition where you would rather be ?

A place where it got treated without payment or a place where when your insurance ran out would cost you more then you could pay.

Do the maths.

That "1 in 3" statistic counts TWENTY MILLION illegals!!! It also counts millions of younger people that can afford health care but CHOOSE not to have it (like myself). You may need to rethink these reasons you have for advocating "universal" health care. Look around you at the people that are advocating it with you. Our health care system was JUST FINE until the government screwed it all up. THE GOVERNMENT made it so expensive no one can afford it. THE GOVERNMENT made it so that those VERY FEW people that aren't being treated have nowhere to turn but THE GOVERNMENT. THAT is the plan and the agenda. Governments want power and you are all too happy to grant it to them when they put the screws to you instead of looking at the problem as it is and seeing the creator of the problem is the one now offering you the "solution". I would think that of all places I could escape such a statistic here. You want Pedro Hernandez swimming over the border to get some of your free health care? That by the way is exactly what's happening in Europe. England and France are over-run with third-worlders. Our situation would be much worse because we already have an invasion problem -that would only increase.

Honestly? I'd rather die free than live under the enslavement of an all-powerful government, but that's me. Nevermind the fact that any of this long-term care you speak of probably originated in the US and wouldn't even EXIST if not for free market medicine. Socialized medicine is not innovative. If the entire world abandons liberty it also abandons any meaningful progress in science in general and medicine in particular. That sort of willingness to perpetuate in ignorance is not something I'm willing to endure.

Giving the government power over an individual's life and death is also not something I'm willing to accept. Health care rationing is the inevitable result of a socialized system. If the system is only "pseudo-socialized", like the one in France, then I have to give all of my money to the government and they decide where the fruits of my labor are allocated -also something I am not willing to accept.

Like so many things, people nowadays want to take the "easy" way out and just hand everything over to the government. It's the old gag about trading freedom for security all over again and I'm not having any of it.

What you are not acknowledging, and what I have mentioned severa times, is that the problems that you seem to have with the free market system of medicine can be fixed without giving the government a whole new branch of power over us. Do you desire this state of affairs where you are completely subject to the whims of the all-powerful bureaucracy? Maybe you don't care.

If you take 20 percent of the US economy away from the private sector and give it to the government, the economy will stagnate and the money will not be available to fuel general growth. When that happens, the relative percentage of money we'll have to spend proportional to the amount we make will rise. Our economic condition will come to more closely to resemble that of these inferior models all around the world.

Plus, there are TONS of examples of long term care that aren't provided by "universal" systems. You're looking at this from a biased perspective. Universal health care is NOT the utopian dream you proclaim it to be, and if the US is not there to prop it up it stagnates. Freedom doesn't pay, freedom costs. You apparently are unwilling to pay. Maybe you don't care for liberty -that's your position. Your responses seem to indicate the amount of thought you've put into it. I understand your position, I just don't agree with it.

The NHS budget is 100 billion, or £1800 for every man woman and child or £3600 for every taxpayer/worker. If you are working do you think you get value for your £3600 ? If you are on minimum wage you do not even pay that much in tax anyway so someone else is paying most of your share.

Its a tough question really but whichever system is used it needs to be managed properly and not used as a political football and PC experiment as at present. Personally I would favour privately run hospitals but with treatment payed for through the tax system with only UK citizens eligible for funding, foreigners would have to make their own arrangements with the private hospital.

1 in 3? At the last count 50 million, or 1 in 6, had no health INSURANCE, that does not mean no coverage at all.

50 million's a lot of people.

Why should any citizen, in an advanced society, be denied health care? The US is not even familiar with the concept of enlightened self-interest. If it were, it would be realised that the provision of universal health care is essential to avoid having a large minority, who will be the first victims of any pandemic to sweep the country ... and then pass it on to everyone else.